Mixing Signals To Dazzle Women

Mixing your signals — aka obfuscating your intentions — is a powerful holistic technique to arouse interest in women, the class of beings who strangely desire more that which gives the least interest in satisfying their desires.

The status signals (and, really, are there any other kind of signals that matter in the least bit when a man is interacting with a woman?) that men display can be broadly categorized into body language and verbal communication.

Body language comprises a host of nonverbal mannerisms and displays, from the way a man walks, to his dress, his facial expressions, to how he moves his limbs, and even to how he stands or holds a glass. Verbal communication is the words that come out of a man’s mouth, and the way in which he says them, in hopes of creating a desirous spark in an attractive woman.

Most men focus on the words they say, because the impact of a man’s body language on women’s senses is both poorly understood and intangible relative to the impact that he thinks his words carry. Body language is therefore relegated to acting in concert with subconscious feelings of self-worth; for this reason, body language can be a man’s worst enemy if he is unaware how his mannerisms betray his hidden emotional state.

Verbal communication is thus overrated and body language underrated by men. The upshot to this formula is that men can chill a bit on the pressure to say the right thing, if they work to adjust their body language so that it does most of the talking for them.

Mixing signals is the art of telling/showing a woman one thing, while showing/telling her another. There are four permutations of body language and speech that are possible when approaching women, only two of which involve mixed signals.

1. Direct Body Language (DBL) + Direct Verbal Communication (DVC)

You make a bold statement of intention with both your body motions and your words. Example:

Walking slowly toward a woman, holding eye contact the whole way, stopping in front of her, pausing for effect, and with a low, deliberate tone of voice, saying, “I’d regret it forever if I didn’t come over and see if you are the type of woman I want to get to know better.”

2. Indirect Body Language (IBL) + Indirect Verbal Communication (IVC)

You engage a girl with a seemingly innocuous statement about some peculiarity in your shared environment, and comport yourself like you have another place to be and she just happens to be there to listen to you. Example:

Looking over your shoulder at the girl, turning your body to partially face her, one foot pointed in another direction, rocking back on your heels as you speak, glancing once or twice at some faraway object, and with a neutral tone of voice, saying “If the bookstore weren’t so full of poseurs, we might have a chance to get a book within the next hour.”

3. DBL + IVC

You make a bold statement of romantic intention with your body and facial expressions, while speaking neutrally so as to suggest you are not interested in hitting on her. Example:

Directly facing the woman, positioning yourself so that eye contact is unavoidable and escape is limited, occupying her personal space, you ask in an unthreatening, bland tone of voice, after a mood-heightening silent pause, if she can direct you to the nearest toy shop so you can buy a gift for your niece.

Body rocking, feet positioned as if you are about to walk off, approaching at an angle with shoulders turned halfway outward, eyes surveying your environment, you open her directly with a strong sexual vibe that belies your mannerisms.

Which of these styles of interaction is best? That’s hard to say, because the style that works best depends in some measure on the skill of the womanizer. A sexually needy man who experiences bouts of nerves when cute girls are near stands a good chance of being perceived as incongruent in his words and behavior if he tries to directly open a girl while comporting himself as if he’s too cool for school. Similarly, an experienced player with rock solid confident body language who masks his intentions under a flurry of misdirecting banalities may strike a girl as a coward who is too skittish to say what’s on his mind.

However, this contextual problem aside, I believe a useful generalization about the effectiveness of the different approach styles can be made.

This is essentially what most guys do when they attempt to be indirect, they are indirect with their words (“How do you get to Starbucks?”) but then they are very direct with their body language–mainly eye contact and body orientation. They face her and give her lots of eye contact, looking at her continuously, as if they’ve just spotted a rare bird. From my experience, instead of combining the best of both worlds, this combines the worst.

When you’re direct, it shows balls. The drawback is that you are betraying a lot of interest, which lowers your value and makes you seem like less of a challenge. When you combine an indirect verbal opener with direct body language, you betray interest but don’t show any balls at all.

Once you’re in the interaction with her, you can start to show more interest physically, once she’s earned it. You can be more sexual with your eye contact, etc. But if you’re going to open indirect, then be indirect. Don’t betray too much interest. Act like she just happened to be there and so you said something to her. If you’re going to walk across a room/park just to talk to her, then show some balls. Go direct.

Eric is onto something. The DBL + IVC style is probably the riskiest strategy for the average man to pull off. It’s too easy to come across like a suave dude who can’t go the extra distance and just ask the girl out. I bet a lot of you good-looking guys who read this blog have this problem.

Any kind of situation which necessarily calls for a direct approach — say, walking across a park or large room in full view of your target so that she is under no illusion why you are moving in on her — would benefit from a direct style verbal opener. You can still go indirect in these circumstances, but you had better be a master at manipulating women’s expectations so that your value remains at a constant high level compared to them.

Men new to the stealthy art of seduction are best served learning pickup by employing the IBL + IVC style. This is, in fact, what most pickup artists teach their acolytes. The typical woman prefers the indirect approach from the typical man, and the inexperienced man is not going to possess the degree of self-amused state control that is required to successfully pull off direct approaches. The newb will need gradual indicators of interest from women to build up his confidence levels to a point where he is comfortable risking more on direct openers and interactions of powerful sexual intention.

Then, too, the newb can get a better grasp of gauging a woman’s “buying temperature” by adjusting his body language from indirect to direct and back to indirect, as opposed to the more difficult route of direct to indirect back to direct. It’s easier to maintain plausible deniability with the former than with the latter.

So, I’d say IBL + IVC is optimal for younger men and less experienced men. This is not a mixed signal strategy at the outset, but it can be farther along in the process when it is simpler to incorporate different verbal and nonverbal tactics.

Where it gets interesting is the IBL + DVC strategy. This can potentially be the most powerful approach technique wielded in the right hands. Such a man is perceived as having the conviction of his words, but simultaneously sending barely perceptible signals that his interest level is waning, or that he’s hard to keep engaged. Naturals tend to this style, and the classic archetype is the devil-may-care badboy who speaks of lustful things to a girl while his eyes wander around the room scanning for fresh meat.

Generally, though, mixing signals is a technique best left for experts. The risk of mood-killing incongruence is very high, and I’ve seen far too many enthusiastic men muck it up when they couldn’t sufficiently manage the inherent discrepancy between their words and their mannerisms.

YaReally makes the inarguable point that, once a certain level of inner confidence is achieved, it doesn’t really matter what kind of approach style a man uses.

The PUA community used to think you needed solid indirect openers to open. Then we found out you could go direct. […]

Now we understand that you can open with anything, as long as what you open with comes from a place of self-amusement and congruency.

When you think “How should I open this girl?” you’re essentially thinking “What can I say/do to earn this girl’s validation?” and you’re already coming from a frame of having lower value than her.

When you think “What I’m saying is gold, of course she’ll love me, I’m so awesome!” you’re essentially screening her for “Is she cool enough for me to let her hang with me?” and you’re coming from a frame of having higher value than her.

Girls generally pick up on this subconsciously, because they’ve spent their lives having to learn to quickly assess “is this person being genuine/honest with me or are they trying to get something from me?”

A lot of why “Who lies more?” worked so well was because the guys learning it felt like they found the secret invincible formula, so when they approached with it they were approaching from that “This is going to blow her mind, of course she’s going to love me” frame.

Direct worked because the guys who tried it were sick of going indirect and beating around the bush and wanted to just get their intentions out in the open so they were just saying “HEY. You’re cute, I’d kick myself if I didn’t come say hi.” and expecting it to work, so it did.

Some of you may be asking, “Doesn’t YaReally’s advice contradict the study you just posted about how indirect, innocuous openers are best?”

Good question! Superficially, yes. But you’ve got to understand that most of the men involved in these studies have no game, have never heard of game, and likely wouldn’t understand the concept of congruence if you whacked them over the head with it. These studies examine the responses of women to the behavior of the *average, no-game-having* man, and in that context, indirect is best. Since that context is most contexts, it is good advice to follow for most men. Men who have been exposed to a new way of thinking about women and seduction are better equipped to pursue different approach strategies that streamline the process and maximize their lay rates.

madonnas are whores, sorry noobs, lol jizz🙂, lol. madonnas are whores, madonnas are whores, madonnas are whores, madonnas are whores,. You’re a loser b/c u don’t embrace the fact that all madonas are whores, and those are precisely the females upon which you should focus your energy. lol jizz.

right, but what does yareally’s comment have to do with jew-hatin’, pun-tellin’, and wistfully wishin’ for the days when a deep knowledge and appreciate for showtunes from the 40s was considered, apparently, manly? anyway, yareally only bangs clubsluts and everyone knows clubsluts are different from REAL women (like my wife). also, in case i wasn’t clear, not enough jew-hatin’, yareally. i give you a .3/10

The charm school– all in the name of “destroying pretty lies”–continues!
How _strong_ a man seems when he is insulting and brutal– especially for no reason, from the safety of his jet-black “gaming” keyboard, built for high-velocity FPS. Creo, you are THAT manly man!!!

For christ’s sake . . . please do something to soften the integration of young bucks into this community. It gets very tiresome having to repeatedly abide their spurt of minimally educated testosterone, on roughly a monthly basis. Of course, they’re totally welcome, but perhaps they should be required to read your full archives, or go through a month’s waiting period, before commenting. It makes veterans (me, at least… not that I matter) not want to visit your latest musings.

It’s clear that CH has taken the editorial approach of customizing its message to noobs, and that’s fine, as we must all support those newly taking the red pill. But, you also have veteran readers who rarely comment and simply appreciate the mature male conversation that takes place here. It seems every month or so, an influx of noobs disrupts that conversation, and it just gets tiresome. Please consider some type of softening entry mechanism for their joining of the conversation, for no other reason but to maintain a level of fluidity in the conversation.

In any event, I disagree. I’ve been an almost daily reader since 2009. I suppose we all have some conception of what this blog is and who is written to and for. That’s normal/natural. However, I find myself most perturbed by the seeming rise in traditionalist that have taken to repeatedly posting their inane blathering about fathers and honor and white people and so on. Trust me, I under the proprietor is, at the very least, sympathetic to some of these causes, but at his core, his basest, he is an animal: self-interested and biologically driven to fuck strange. Ah, me too. As such, I appreciate yareally because he brings practical fucking knowledge and experience to the folks. Isn’t it just so boring to care about all these other things that you traditionalist go on and on about? I don’t mean for me. Obviously I am bored. But, even for yourselves, don’t you see the latent whiteknightery of it all? Before you go judging me, I’m a repub who is anti-zionist and say racist things all the time. But life is too absurd to make these little things hallmarks.

A fair and reasoned retort. This blog is one of the most sophisticated conversations taking place on the internet. When the conversation gets really deep, it’s disrupting when young bucks come crashing in with their newly found epiphanies. It disrupts the greater multi-year multi-faceted conversation. Noobs are totally welcome–that is in fact largely the point of the conversation. However, upon finding this conversation, perhaps all would be well served if the noobs took a moment to observe and get their bearings, before commenting. It may be that CH is simply evolving to a place that no longer resonates with veterans–and that would be sad, for ME. If that is the case, then I will have to bow out gracefully (cheers for the gallery). That’s not what I want, which is why I comment. Progression along this red pill spectrum is a highly personal experience. CH seems to have chosen to cater to noobs, which, as I said, is perfectly fine. On his blog, Xsplat is posting some truly advanced shit (no affiliation). I love CH and wish it would more evenly balance the needs of noobs versus advanced practitioners. I very well may not get my wish. A gaping niche on the internet is that of advanced practitioners.

The right opener for the situation is but one tool in your arsenal and not the most important. Using the right opener can doubtless help you interest a few girls who wouldn’t otherwise be interested, but that’s it.

Why did you answer to this hot girl who was asking you if she is attractive enough for a lesser alpha but you never answer to any of my messages? Is this because she’s prettier or because you don’t like my personality? Just asking.

I think the thing to remember here is that body language/spoken language needs to be fluid. It’s not only the incongruity of body-verbal language but incongruity over time that works best. An example: You see a cupcake surrounded by her beta-boy followers. You approach from the side, demand her attention, and no, not as a supplicant. Usually, a strong “excuse me”, combined with a good touch will get her attention. Then direct eye contact and a simple statement followed by the classic take-away, (turn and leave without waiting for a response),will whet the carnal appetite of any hottie. The idea is to establish dominance along with indifference.

This is the reason that Cocaine is such a pussy slaying drug; the artifical sky high internal confidence levels are reflected in both body language and behavior (ie turns you into an overconfident asshole).

Def responses to a less violent version of that. Well actually, the violence was converse.

Massive fight, like a “how are we gunna fucking end this shit already – but we
Are both stubborn and don’t wanna be the one left (spoiler alert, it was me)”. I slapped him, hard. Apparently I hit well. He ran, he threw my shit and ran.

He texted “send your roomate over to get your stuff. Bye”

I called, gave a sorry sob story about how he was more important to me than anything blah blah.

He called back. Asked how he could possibly take me back, see me ever, after id physically assulted him. I pointed out he had been repeateadly taunting me, i had specifically said “if you do that again I will slap you” and you did, laughing at me. What response did you expect? Has that EVER worked for you. He agreed that was a valid point. Said I could come over (I was 3 blocks away).

Got to his place, got the speech about violence etc. then, said give me a blow job. I was like… You’re turned on now? Wtf. I guess my ego stroking stroked him. He wanted me to repent via the ultimate selfless sex act. And I did it.

Then we went hung out on his porch, went to dinner, came back, watched TV, had sex and went to bed.

“Got to his place, got the speech about violence etc. then, said give me a blow job. I was like… You’re turned on now? Wtf.”

Nah. Turned on, maybe, but not so much because of your ego stroking/apology. Giving a guy a blow job, imo, is one of the utmost forms of female sexual submission/male domination arguably second to butthexing, he just wanted to feel like he still had some control in the relationship after getting slapped.

I don’t think I can be with someone who the thought of “slapping” will ever cross my mind no matter how angry I was and if I slapped someone and they took me back (that easily) I will probably lose respect for them.

I see how most guys use DBL with IVC and fail. For street approaches I prefer DBL and DVC for the opener, but then gradually go IBL and IVC relative to her interest level (e.g. feet/shoulders pointed at an angle away from her, hands in pockets/thumbs out, break eye contact, display an air of skepticism to what she’s saying). Going direct in the beginning to stop her and spike her emotions with a compliment or observation usually gives me an indication of her interest level within 30 sec. (to think that not so long ago, pre-game, I’d have waited months to determine if a girl was interested, “..was blind but now I see”)

“This is the reason that Cocaine is such a pussy slaying drug; the artifical sky high internal confidence levels are reflected in both body language and behavior (ie turns you into an overconfident asshole).”….Coke doesn’t slay pussies…it satiates Alphas. Think about it.

Read Johnny Mercer’s lyrics to ‘Personality’–1946. He knew what he was talking about. How many fat women do you know who have a ‘well developed’ personality? Timid men don’t have one. Older version, faint heart never won fair lady.

Fat women and timid men share the same disorder…they are evolutionary dead ends and would have never lived beyond puberty or at least never have had the opportunity to pass on their genes in pre-modern times.

Heh, there was a time when parents arranged marriages, and moreover a fat girl was considered more desirable, as it was a sign of health, and “fine” nutrition.
Thin=sick, and since all the girls wanted to be fatter, thin was not very present.

I assume that guys weren’t much attracted to such women, but simply brainwashed by that tradition into believing that they “should” love them, besides all were more – less fat, so you couldn’t make a distinction.
In our villages such practices continued well into 20th century.

Times change? Nothing new under the sun. Now you should find single moms, and sluts as the pinnacle of beauty and desirability.

‘Fat’ back then was considered a buxom, well-fed farm girl (with a small waist, she does work, after all) with rosy cheeks and curves like so: )(
NOT like so: ()
As opposed to the inbred, deathly pale daughter of ‘nobility’ whose corset is so tight, she can neither breathe nor swallow her food. Which is one of the reasons why she faints every 10 minutes.Severe vitamin D deficiency may be another. It’s dark in a castle.

Since it very seldom got to the point of impacting mobility or fertility, it’s more like brainwashed by survival.

Fatness was (and to a degree, still is outside of highly industrialized areas) about class. If you were carrying more weight than normal, it meant you came from a more successful family than normal.

The thing most fat women don’t like to hear though, is that more fat means less vulnerability to the subconscious. It’s like you’re walking around with a horde of microscopic bodyguards broadcasting, “This person comes from a family that can afford lots of extra food and leisure time.” It means the same thing that politeness means in a man.

It is nobody’s fault that these things are not generally sexually attractive to the masses when shopping for new mates, if left to make up their own minds. When they said something that may be good about a person, what they were saying wasn’t related to the sex. So where sex and ego gratification are the most important things in dating, suitability signals that don’t say that you’ll be a good time fade in relevance.

So men have to be assholes to get laid, and women have to be skinny to be taken seriously in places where the game is about predator and prey. A sort of saving grace for fat chicks is that some guys think that we’re easier or maybe just less stuck up targets.

Love is something else. I deign to use the word to describe practical attachment. Men can be programmed or socially pressured to be practically attached to whatever they’re told they should be regardless of natural, objective fitness, suitability, or beauty (or lack thereof). The seemingly irrational spark though, will happen regardless of this. Gay men throughout history are the most striking examples of this. Their existence is proof that male sexuality and male love are not so easily chained or manipulated.

Trends may be whatever they are, and shift like the sands, but a man is pleased by whatever pleases him, and that’s that. You can bring a horse to water, and even force him to drink, but you can’t make him want to.

We can go in circles like that all you want, no proof, just theories.
Maybe thin girl is more sexy than the fat girl of the same rating(would be same rating if the fat would have been thin), because the subconsciousness thinks like:This girl doesn’t even has to be fat to feel secure about survival, she has other mechanisms(strong father, brother or so) which brings us to good genes that she possesses, especially if her face is beautiful and body nice looking(the absence of the disease), so she’s secure, slim and not threatened. Seems to me like a success.

Your story about gays; maybe that is a form of a practical partnership.
Note that in these “relationships” you always have muscular partner, and feminine partner. In some pairs it may not be so obvious, but i suspect it to be so anyway. Which would mean that they are not gays actually. They just live an illusion of relations with other sex.

[…] Mixing your signals — aka obfuscating your intentions — is a powerful holistic technique to arouse interest in women, the class of beings who strangely desire more that which gives the least interest in satisfying their desires. The status signals (and, really, are there any other kind of signals that matter in the least bit when a man is interacting with a woman?) that men display can be broadly categorized into body language and verbal communication. Body language comprises a host of nonverbal mannerisms and displays, from the way a man walks, to his dress, his facial expressions, to how he moves his limbs, and even to how he stands or holds a glass. Verbal communication is the words that come out of a man’s mouth, and the way in which he says them, in hopes of creating a desirous spark in an attractive woman. Most men focus on the words they say, because the impact of a man’s body language on women’s senses is both poorly understood and intangible relative to the impact that he thinks his words carry. Body language is therefore relegated to acting in concert with subconscious feelings of self-worth; for this reason, body language can be a man’s Source: Chateau Heartiste […]

3. DBL + IVC tends to work well for good-looking guys. The girl is so excited to have this hot dude sending her his unmistakable body language cues that what comes out of his mouth is largely irrelevant, as long as it’s not embarrassing.

I have had to walk across the room to meet a girl I thought was cute. The key is slow movements, and glancing around the room at other women while you are walking in her general direction. Then I do a direct opener… “It is a pleasure to meet me,” or, “I saw you from across the room and I knew you had to meet me.”

No, its quite believable, because the “free money” that nigger gets, gives value to the asset the white person owns (the apartment he rents)

White people own a lot of “stuff” and the reason this stuff has value is because there is a nonwhite person who needs it. This white ownership class is gonna make sure their “stuff” maintains value even if they gotta take some of your money and give it to niggers so they can buy it.

White people have put themselves in a situation where if they stop giving niggers money, many of the assets white people own would suddenly be worthless.

In other words, these white people would have to get jobs instead of borrowing against their assets for tax free money.

But you get it from the taxes, these same people pay to the state. So you’re actually giving them their money back, and for that they give you stuff you need.
Or rather you canalize the money from the working class to the landowners, and the upper class…

“That money wouldn’t even exist without blacks.” Not true. It would have been spent on something else, now we can speculate; would it be spent on preservation of whales in east China Sea, on unnecessary military/space programs, or something much more useful…

I think i get the problem of integration of blacks, but why don’t you recapitulate them with your own words, so that we might “get it right”.
Is it that they don’t want to give you jobs? Is it that they don’t give you fine opportunities at education?
Is it your subculture and cultural pressure from black community prevents you from doing anything useful in life? why don’t you move from them? Isn’t easy to do as it is to write, but if that’s one of the main reasons…

You’ve been slaves that shit is traumatic even long after it’s been over, but you’ve been in the States for 300 yrs and haven’t managed to succeed, and adapt, how so? When Croats come to Germany, USA, Canada, Australia – which are alien to us starting from religion, to mentality(their is superior to ours), to values, and customs, we adapt within a generation, not even knowing a language of the land, do i need to mention our emigrants come to these lands with empty pockets?

What’s the deal? You could if you tried hard enough.

What man must see though is a rise in private bussineses owned by blacks lately(90s and 2000s), is there finally a change taking place?

Tried this at work today with the young office hottie to great effect. [I’m married, and not really interested in closing; of course this only heightens her attraction.]

We had some private time together, and as it was ending I said slowly and seriously, “There’s something I’ve been meaning to ask you for some time now…. When are you going to finish that story about your trip to _____ that you started telling me.” She wouldn’t leave my side even though she was late, yapping on with her silly story while I pretending to listen and grunted a few times.